magnum56 wrote:For what it is worth, and I have posted this before, this (see below) is what the QLD SFFP want for our gun laws, every point can be argued based on facts, statistical information, it is time we got relevance back into the laws, instead of, as is the current situation, laws being formed around sound good political advantage and posturing, where they achieve results for politicians and parties, they need to be based on facts, so as they actually achieve a better result for the public.

QLD SFFP Firearms POLICY POINTS

• Support personal protection as a genuine reason to obtain a firearms license, including for a handgun.

Dafuq?

Unless you're a meth dealer, or live in downtown Mogadishu, what sh*t are you into / what sh*thole do you live in that you need a firearm for 'personal protection' in this country? In the words of Pauline, "please explain". I'm genuinely curious to hear how that policy point "can be argued based on facts and statistical information".

This is one of the big problems when we talk about self protection. ... in this country the threat is not just from people maybe come up to a part of the country where just goin for a walk in the bush can put ya at risk. There are many situations where a rifle is not practical to use or would currently be illegal to use( walking in state forest for eg)Many years ago there was an incident where a croc grabbed a bloke out of there tent and his mum in law jumped on it ...became known as super gran.The only reason no one died that day was because a third party had a handgun(legally owned but against the law to have in his possession) and he was able to get an accurate shot to the crocs head.wich under the conditions would have been almost impossible with a rifle. So please don't limit the debate on npersonal protection to protection from human threat.

grandadbushy wrote:My question would be ''If the right people were licenced to have a hand gun at home or on their person I wonder how many less murders, home invasions,rapes, bashings, kidnaps, mass shootings would there be'' The answer would be we don't know until it happens which I doubt it ever will

Good morning GB, I agree with you that it does seem like an unknowable hypothetical. I won't pretend to have the answers, only a bunch of questions, and your question raises a few other questions... .[*]LAFOs are already licenced to have firearms at home - is that dropping the crime rates?[*]who are "the right people" and who gets to decide that?[*]how many e.g. home invasions are there now, and who are they happening to? My knowledge of the facts on that point is admittedly based on anecdotal evidence such as news reports but it seems when it does happen 9/10 it is drug debt related and the parties are all known to each other ... mum and dad average are not usually random victims of home invasions therefore not in need of special protection.[*]If the firearm is being properly stored at home, how will it and the ammunition be accessed from the safe during a home invasion in time to be of any use?[*]what additional training will people have to receive in order to be competent to carry for personal protection so that innocent bystanders don't get shot up when someone decides to step in to save the day? It's one thing to shoot nice groups on paper, quite another to hit anything when you're experiencing a huge adrenaline dump. You ever experience 'buck fever' when hunting? Imagine that effect amplified because the target can shoot back & you're armed with a pistol making accuracy challenging at the best of times[*]will people be required to receive additional training in weapon retention? [That's right, if we're carrying for personal protection, its intended function is now as a weapon]. If people are not trained and skilled in weapon retention during a mugging/bashing etc, we'd see a lot of this https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq8qDB5lH3l/ happening before Darwinism thinned the herd.

GB, as LAFOs you and I have a lot more in common than we do a difference of opinion on this issue. My question was to the Qld SFFP to lay out the "facts and statistical information" they say makes the case for 'personal protection' being a genuine reason.Otherwise it seems to be a policy solution to a problem that doesn't exist in this country, and is actually in the long run going to create more problems for us. Certainly, it seems like a policy point the Antis, and the average non-firearm owning citizen will leap on and use to discredit all the other good points

My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm why should it bother you?Your choice is who choose to be, and if you're causing no harm then you're alright with me

Daddybang wrote:This is one of the big problems when we talk about self protection. ... in this country the threat is not just from people maybe come up to a part of the country where just goin for a walk in the bush can put ya at risk. There are many situations where a rifle is not practical to use or would currently be illegal to use( walking in state forest for eg)Many years ago there was an incident where a croc grabbed a bloke out of there tent and his mum in law jumped on it ...became known as super gran.The only reason no one died that day was because a third party had a handgun(legally owned but against the law to have in his possession) and he was able to get an accurate shot to the crocs head.wich under the conditions would have been almost impossible with a rifle. So please don't limit the debate on npersonal protection to protection from human threat.

Fair point , I was examining it only from the point of view that the SFFP party were talking human threat. I assumed you were too since the examples you gave of people carrying (police, security etc) are not arming themselves against crocs.

My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm why should it bother you?Your choice is who choose to be, and if you're causing no harm then you're alright with me

Daddybang wrote:This is one of the big problems when we talk about self protection. ... in this country the threat is not just from people maybe come up to a part of the country where just goin for a walk in the bush can put ya at risk. There are many situations where a rifle is not practical to use or would currently be illegal to use( walking in state forest for eg)Many years ago there was an incident where a croc grabbed a bloke out of there tent and his mum in law jumped on it ...became known as super gran.The only reason no one died that day was because a third party had a handgun(legally owned but against the law to have in his possession) and he was able to get an accurate shot to the crocs head.wich under the conditions would have been almost impossible with a rifle. So please don't limit the debate on npersonal protection to protection from human threat.

grandadbushy wrote:My question would be ''If the right people were licenced to have a hand gun at home or on their person I wonder how many less murders, home invasions,rapes, bashings, kidnaps, mass shootings would there be'' The answer would be we don't know until it happens which I doubt it ever will.

Geez GB I don't think I will come up to your part of the country if the bloody crocs are doing murders, home invasions,rapes, bashings, kidnaps, mass shootings

My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm why should it bother you?Your choice is who choose to be, and if you're causing no harm then you're alright with me

As I haven't mentioned cops ot security guards I think ya response was a little mixed up bbss .(hey its early so I understand) My post simply stated that there is more to "self defense" than human threat.As the croc I spoke about actually entered a tent there is a case for it commitimg a home invasion!!

Thanks mate that's a very good point. The vast bulk of the shooting I do is rabbits, foxes and hares with a 10 shot CZ453Not even a week ago a hare came into the yard, this is a six acre yard. I took aim and shot it...the hare was moving slightly and I missed a kill shot. It was knocked down, got up sat there stunned for a second then took off. Damn! I took off after it and it stopped at the fence, this time a lot further away. I managed to get in a second shot and it was dead.It occurred to me that a 2 shot semi auto having a near instant follow up shot would probably have put it down in the first instance.I then got to thinking... could that be a thing?A friend down the road who's an avid deer hunter agrees. Yes we could all be a better shot and I practice pretty much everyday hitting the head of a batten screw at 50m with 6-7/10 hits and want to keep getting better.Truth is we don't always get it right and an instant follow up shot may just prevent a wounded animal escaping.It was just an idea which is why I put it to you guys....maybe the double barrel rifle or others are the way to goEcobogan

On the subject of being "better off" if we were allowed to own and/or carry a handgun for protection, that is the argument tens of millions of Americans use and it's not working for them.

Granted, they have a different societal view, but they have a much higher per capita murder and overall crime rate than we do. The crims know there is a high probability their victim will be armed and go in tooled up.

Weapon retention that BBSS mentioned is very relevant. Panicked untrained people who attempt self defence with a weapon will in many cases have it taken from them and used against them.One of the martial arts I studied in my younger days involved knife techniques, paramount among which were getting a knife from an attacker while unarmed and defences against that disarming.

Far better in my view would be to add self defence training to high school curricula as a mandatory subject like math and English.

Mind you, not too keen on taking on a croc with martial arts, Daddy has that right, some attackers need a bullet.

Hi all,As someone who live overseas and had a pistol for personal protection I have a good example how you can prevent firearms to get into the wrong hands.One good example – Israel firearm laws.• If you done military service – you can get a firearm for personal protection.• If you are a police officer – you can get a firearm for personal protection.• If you are a school teacher, you are responsible for the safety of the children. In some cases you will be required by law to carry a pistol to defend children if needed. • A must requirement – citizenship. No permanent resident or other visa holder. Which means no refugees… in most cases.• A background check – physiological assessment by your GP and criminal record. If you on the terrorist watch list you cannot get a licence• Mandatory training for handguns.

It's working for them, I am sure we can came up with more solutions if we really want to. Cheers,Alex.

The self protection argument while valid to many, isn't one that I'm personally focussing on. I'm talking purely rec shooting.Magnum56- while our political inclinations mightn't run directly parallel your approach to this debate certainly is. I feel we need a total restructuring of the current gun laws that could be had by united numbers, a softened or even sympathetic public, rational factual debate and maybe some sort of compromise or 'deal' that would better for the pro's and anti's more than the current system does.I'm not saying that nobody has tried this all I'm saying is that getting all ideas out on the table might amount to some progress. Legendary hot rod builder Rod Hadfield from Castlemaine in Victoria, which is nearby me, convinced VicRoads it'd be a good idea to let him street register a 55 chev with a WW2 spitfire engine. That's right, that's a 27 litre 3500hp V12 Rolls Royce Merlin. Anyone into high powered cars, those numbers are gob smacking.....now it had a number plate. Through methodical and persistent well researched debate he won, and helped set a precedent for registering heavily modified vehicles in Victoria. I draw lots of inspiration and motivation from these kinds of people and I believe we can do the same

Gaznazdiak wrote: Weapon retention that BBSS mentioned is very relevant. Panicked untrained people who attempt self defence with a weapon will in many cases have it taken from them and used against them.One of the martial arts I studied in my younger days involved knife techniques, paramount among which were getting a knife from an attacker while unarmed and defences against that disarming.

Far better in my view would be to add self defence training to high school curricula as a mandatory subject like math and English

The guy that did the shooting in that video wasn't average Joe. He also didn't really need to put that many shots into the dumb ass that pulled the gun....... But in a high intensity moment like that who knows how you will actually react.....

Regarding training a unarmed person to disarm someone with a knife. It's not easy, there is a extremely high likelihood that your going to get seriously cut. Yes, there are circumstances where you have absolutely no option, but I'm always going to look to create space between myself and the knife first.

Thanks mate that's a very good point. The vast bulk of the shooting I do is rabbits, foxes and hares with a 10 shot CZ453Not even a week ago a hare came into the yard, this is a six acre yard. I took aim and shot it...the hare was moving slightly and I missed a kill shot. It was knocked down, got up sat there stunned for a second then took off. Damn! I took off after it and it stopped at the fence, this time a lot further away. I managed to get in a second shot and it was dead.It occurred to me that a 2 shot semi auto having a near instant follow up shot would probably have put it down in the first instance.I then got to thinking... could that be a thing?A friend down the road who's an avid deer hunter agrees. Yes we could all be a better shot and I practice pretty much everyday hitting the head of a batten screw at 50m with 6-7/10 hits and want to keep getting better.Truth is we don't always get it right and an instant follow up shot may just prevent a wounded animal escaping.It was just an idea which is why I put it to you guys....maybe the double barrel rifle or others are the way to goEcobogan

Tell him to look at a baikal double rifle in 9.3x74r, that will sort out any sambar at that distance.

2 shot semi-auto 12g would have some application on sporting clays and duck shooting, the reduced recoil would be beneficial to some people with medical issues.

Bent Arrow wrote:Regarding training a unarmed person to disarm someone with a knife. It's not easy, there is a extremely high likelihood that your going to get seriously cut. Yes, there are circumstances where you have absolutely no option, but I'm always going to look to create space between myself and the knife first.

That's why all our training used non-metallic training knves. The ones I have are a hard glass filled plastic, that won't cut, but a slash from one on bare skin will leave a welt to reinforce the memory of what not to do.

I wasn't for a second advocating training the general population to use knives on each other,simply using a personal experience to reinforce a point.

I was talking about basic self defence in schools.

If the opportunity to do "the Harold Holt" presents, it's almost always the wisest choice, but when it doesn't, it's handy to know where things like your attacker's Vagus Nerve are located and how to use them to his great dismay

Unless you're a meth dealer, or live in downtown Mogadishu, what sh*t are you into / what sh*thole do you live in that you need a firearm for 'personal protection' in this country? In the words of Pauline, "please explain". I'm genuinely curious to hear how that policy point "can be argued based on facts and statistical information".

You don't need to live in immediate danger to have the right to choose your means of defending yourself. People are murdered, raped and assaulted here every day, why shouldn't they have the right to choose an effective means of defending themselves?

The only people that should be concerned about people having forearms are the meth dealers, murderers, rapists, terrorists and deranged spouses committing the atrocities. People like yourself that do not do these things have no reason at all to fear an armed populace, none at all.

Ecobogan wrote:Thanks mate that's a very good point. The vast bulk of the shooting I do is rabbits, foxes and hares with a 10 shot CZ453Not even a week ago a hare came into the yard, this is a six acre yard. I took aim and shot it...the hare was moving slightly and I missed a kill shot. It was knocked down, got up sat there stunned for a second then took off. Damn! I took off after it and it stopped at the fence, this time a lot further away. I managed to get in a second shot and it was dead.It occurred to me that a 2 shot semi auto having a near instant follow up shot would probably have put it down in the first instance.I then got to thinking... could that be a thing?A friend down the road who's an avid deer hunter agrees. Yes we could all be a better shot and I practice pretty much everyday hitting the head of a batten screw at 50m with 6-7/10 hits and want to keep getting better.Truth is we don't always get it right and an instant follow up shot may just prevent a wounded animal escaping.It was just an idea which is why I put it to you guys....maybe the double barrel rifle or others are the way to goEcobogan

If you stood and watched it without being prepared for a second shot, a semi-auto wouldn't have made any difference.The advantage of semi-auto is it always has a second shot ready to go, but if you aren't ready to take that shot you might as well have a single-shot rifle.Every time you pull the trigger, cycle the action immediately and get back on the sights in case the animal gets up again.